Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.

To request an administrative action review, please first read the "Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

1. an administrator action
2. an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

1. to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process

   For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

   For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)

2. to ask to remove a user's permissions:

   Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator if XRV finds them to be misused.

   Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of an administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.

3. to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
4. to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.

   You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

   Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.

Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.

The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.

After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.

Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.

Abuse of authority

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

- Action

Admin participation in ANI discussion: [1] Admin reasoning for block given in ANI discussion: [2] Initial 24 hour arbitration enforcement block: [3] Initial block changed to regular block: [4]

- Editor

Elli

- Discussion

Initial reply: [5] Initial appeal: [6] Request to copy block notice to other noticeboards and discussion: [7] Second request to copy block notice to other noticeboards and discussion: [8]

- Reason

The administrator imposed a particularly strong block and did not follow the appropriate protocol involving copying the block notification to administrative noticeboards, preventing any administrative oversight. I attempted to appeal the block using the given template, which includes the request to copy the block notification, and was met with consistent resistance. The administrator then changed the block to a normal block and continued to dismiss my appeal.

I strongly believe that these actions were an abuse of administrator authority and not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As detailed within WP:ADMINGUIDE/B WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE WP:BLOCKP and WP:CDB, blocking should be done “to protect the encyclopedia from harm”, not to punish or “cool down” an editor.

I did not vandalize, demonstrate gross incivility, harass, spam, edit war, sock puppet, attack or threaten.

Necessary background information: I shifted my focus from editing articles/discussing article edits on talk pages to discussing the reliability of sources at WP:RSN so as to not disrupt talk page discussions with more in-depth source analysis. My initial discussion there was inappropriately non-admin closed, and then reopened during the aforementioned ANI discussion which the administrator participated in prior to issuing the AE block. Rob Roilen (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• As the administrator who enacted the block here, I stand behind it. I encourage other editors to review this section at ANI (pl) as well as some of their behavior at other discussions (this makes up ~all of their recent edits, so I'm not linking to any particular one) to get a sense of why I blocked. Also, noting that I did initially enact an AE block, but switched to a regular block on suggestion of ToBeFree. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I gotta say, you got off pretty lightly. Please move on already. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I've noticed Rob Roilen's contributions when dealing with a page protection request, had a look at their user page and deleted it as an attack page. Rob Roilen has voiced their unhappiness and a lack of surprise about this action. As the page content was quoted in Special:Permalink/1253946907 by Trulyy, it's still accessible to anyone. While I think it did qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G10, it doesn't qualify for revision deletion. Anyway: Because of their userpage content and their contribution list that appears to be focused entirely on political disputes, I wasn't surprised to see the block, only about its short duration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  With respect, I also feel very strongly that the deletion of my user page was inappropriate and not a proper use of WP:G10. My personal mission statement that declared my intent to counter intellectually dishonest editors was by no means intended "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" since there was no singular subject, and stating intent to debate, especially in the context of editing an encyclopedia, is not disparaging or threatening anyone.

  I am not a single purpose account. Before my recent edits, the grand majority of my edits were about the 737 MAX, and I even achieved consensus on a fairly substantial edit within that article. I would even argue that my recent edits were high quality and contributed to the integrity of the encyclopedia, since many of them still remain on the main article pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see exactly four edits at the bottom of your account's contribution list that may fit the description "edits about the 737 MAX". Four edits. What am I missing? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I forgot that I had not yet created an account when I made my most significant edits. I made those edits using the IP 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882. Apologies for any confusion.

  You can see an extensive discussion I began here Rob Roilen (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, Special:Contributions/2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63/64 is indeed huge. That's 121 contributions including edit warring ([9] [10] [11] [12]), warnings and a block ([13]), a concern being voiced about single-purpose editing ([14]), a DRN thread ([15]) and an accidentally logged-out contribution to a contentious discussion ([16]) that displays the "me against the others in Wikipedia's community" spirit from your user page.

  My main concern is still whether letting the block automatically expire after 24 hours was a mistake, or if you can disengage and find ways to contribute time to the project rather than causing the community to spend it on dealing with your requests and behavior. The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas, and there are probably about 6 million articles that allow you to collaborate with their authors rather than attacking them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, those very first incidents were my first edits on Wikipedia and I did not understand the policies surrounding edit warring. As you can hopefully see, I went on to remedy this and succeeded in making high quality edits, even achieving consensus with the editors who disagreed with me or even referred me to administrators.

  Regarding the accidentally logged-out contribution, I still believe that it is "intellectually dishonest to use mainstream media headlines as sources", do you disagree? I believe the proper context is very important, since what brought me to this recent string of edits was noticing an abundance of absolutely non-neutral edits to the Tony Hinchcliffe article within the immediate aftermath of his set at the MSG rally.

  And again, I'm trying to point out unambiguously that I specifically went to WP:RSN to do exactly what you're saying: move in-depth, contentious discussion out of actual article talk pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's already established that headlines are not reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES. I think most regulars at RSN are already aware of this but in any case it's not something that needs discussion and definitely not whether it's "intellectually dishonest". In fact it's unlikely to ever be worth discussing whether something is "intellectually dishonest" on a community board. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC) 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• (non admin, involved editor), this is yet another example of what I mentioned on the ani (well it may well be archived now) about not listening. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at the deleted user page, and glancing over just some of this mess, I would say you got off pretty easy. It's a good thing a less patient admin didn't stumble by, or you would still be arguing from your talk page. You don't understand policy as well as you think you do, so you will do better if you stop trying to wikilawyer people here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do not appreciate the aspersion, and interestingly enough I see a statement with similar intent on your user page albeit couched in different terms. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What about the aspersions you cast when you created a user page saying Hello, I'm Rob. I'm here in an attempt to counter the unfortunately large community of Wikipedia editors who have absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Too bad there are enough of them with authority at this point that people like me get banned for arguing too much. Followed by My last user page was deleted by the very people I thought would delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I do believe that there are many editors here who are not acting in good faith and abuse their authority or understanding of policy in an attempt to tilt articles and discussions in their favor. I see in your user page that you express a similar goal to spread the truth and verify it.

  Have you considered that we are actually on the same team whether or not our personal opinions align? Rob Roilen (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  So to be clear if other people say "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering", that's an aspersion, but if you say "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" that's ok because you believe it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Which policy am I misinterpreting? I am genuinely asking for an example. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What kind of answer is that? The policy you are misinterpreting is WP:THERE IS NO SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR YOU, PERSONALLY, TO VIOLATE ALL OF OUR BEHAVIORAL POLICIES AND GENERALLY BE UNPLEASANT AND BATTLEGROUND-Y, JUST BECAUSE YOU, PERSONALLY, BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am disappointed by your dismissal of my good faith attempt at discussion. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am disappointed by your dismissal of the great many attempts at good faith discussion by a great many editors in this thread and elsewhere! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will ask my question: why is "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering" an aspersion but "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" is ok? Is there any reason other than you said one of these things and the other was said about you? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because the former is an opinion unless an uninvolved administrator would like to definitively point to a specific violation of policy, and the non-paraphrased version of what I stated on my user page is something I expect many editors - who hold wildly varying opinions but a similar goal to maintain neutrality - would agree with after spending considerable time here. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you act like a professional, perpetual victim, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously. Some might see it as dramamongering, which is a sign of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• A 24 hour block? Elli was very lenient. I would have gone longer and think indef should be considered by a non-involved admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think now we are well into wp:tenditious territory. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain how I am "partisan, biased, skewed" and not maintaining "an editorially neutral point of view" by trying to discuss the reliability of a source on the very specific noticeboard for that purpose. I am genuinely asking. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are not genuinely asking, because the question has been repeatedly answered on that thread and you simply ignore what everyone else is telling you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing I don't support by Elli was marking such a short block as an AE action, given it makes all appeal mechanisms rather pointless (as they require consensus to overturn, which just ain't happening in 24 hours). I think the ongoing conduct has shown that the block was correct, or potentially too short, and therefore support the block/oppose this review. Daniel (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that you mention how it is not possible to reach a consensus within 24 hours when the RS discussion that eventually brought me here was closed before a single day had passed. Rob Roilen (talk

  He didn't say it was impossible; he said it wasn't going to happen. There's a significant difference in visibility between these types of discussions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The 24-hour block was appropriate and lenient. This request looks like a continuation of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that resulted in the block. (After seeing the block, which looked appropriate to me at the time, I commented on a talk page discussion about an edit made by Rob Roilen, so I'm involved at this point.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• (Non-admin, uninvolved comment) It's 24 hours, it's over. I believe the block was justified per aribtration enforcement and Wikipedia:Civility. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing as your block has already expired. It's likely best that you drop this action review & move on. Best not to protest too much. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, no. I believe an admin acted inappropriately, the length of the block is not the issue. And is this a vote or ...? I'm starting to find the amount of uninvolved input a bit strange. Rob Roilen 23:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's advice from a veteran editor, of over 19 years experience. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  As another veteran editor of over 19 years experience, I too advise you (Rob Roilen) to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or prepare to be on the receiving end of WP:BOOMERANG. The purpose of this page is to get uninvolved input, and the amount you are receiving is not unusual. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The whole point of this noticeboard is to get uninvolved input, which you are getting. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was under the impression this was for input from uninvolved administrators, who are better versed in admin policy, to decide whether or not another admin used their privileges improperly. Rob Roilen

  From the top of this page: Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed., but multiple people responding to you (including me) are administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  At my count, @Rob Roilen, seven admins have chimed in, and the only disagreement with the block (stated explicitly by the majority of those admins) is that it was too short. I urge you to step away from this dispute and work on something else for a while. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): Clearly a reasonable action given the apparent battleground conduct here and elsewhere. Would support an indefinite block. C F A 💬 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• At this point it seems like it is administratively impossible for me to even begin a discussion on the reliability of a source that has a green name on RS/P. If someone disagrees with me and closes the discussion early, and I try to appeal it, I'm accused of battleground behavior. Then if I try to defend my position, the accusations, block threats and insults continue. My genuine, good faith effort to discuss something very specific that greatly impacts the integrity of the encyclopedia is met with such incredible resistance that it actually boggles my mind.

Surely you all must understand how your mentality towards a minority dissenting voice can be used against you someday? Surely I'm not the only one who sees how this group mentality has very high potential to affect the neutrality of the encyclopedia? I don't have any fancy WP links, I'm trying to appeal to your rationality. Rob Roilen

• Wikipedia works on consensus. If you are a "minority dissenting voice" in a discussion, then obviously by definition consensus is going to be against you. That doesn't mean those opposing you have a "group mentality", merely that they disagree with you. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand and mostly agree. But I also think it's important to note that the official policy on consensus mentions that consensus requires common sense. This isn't to disparage anyone, but this entire discussion stems from my RS/P discussion where editors plainly did not display common sense: they either did not understand or refused to acknowledge clear rhetorical speech and instead interpreted it literally. Like taking the phrase "walk a mile in someone's shoes" literally. What is an editor supposed to do if they are met with this behavior? It's not my job to educate adults on concepts like that but an understanding of them is essential here. Rob Roilen

And those comments sound to me like a borderline personal attack on the other editors in that discussion. I advise you to strike those comments before some admin less cautious than I blocks you again. - Donald Albury 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

...What? Are you reading the correct discussion?? "Borderline personal attacks"? Where? Please feel free to copy the diffs here, I genuinely have no idea which parts you're talking about. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN Rob Roilen (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

hello[17] soibangla (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity I'm fairly sure Donald Albury was referring to Rob Roilen saying editors "did not display common sense" and other things like "educate adults" which are clearly inappropriate things to say about other editors just because they did not agree with your perspective. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also just to emphasise, while determining consensus is not exactly vote counting, I think anyone with experience here will agree that there is basically no way a discussion with quite a few experienced editors disagreeing with the interpretations of a solitary inexperienced editor is going to be closed as consensus in favour of that solitary editor because they were the only one who displayed "common sense". It isn't even going to be no consensus. It's going to be consensus in favour of all those other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block, which has already expired. Having looked at the deleted userpage, and OP contributions...I get a strong feeling of battleground mentality paired with pointiness. OP got away lightly. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. As an attempt at prevention, this attempt was too weak, because the underlying nature of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior calls for something other than a WP:CDB (and a one-day block is always that). Ultimately, the preventative effect wasn't really achieved. But the effort by the blocking admin to make things better isn't something that should be "not endorsed", as that wouldn't help anything. Agreed with Muboshgu.—Alalch E. 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.